Apple is said to be pushing forward with its plans to launch a full-fledged television set, holding meetings with media executives and sharing their vision for the future of the living room, including the possibility of storing recorded TV content in iCloud.

Apple executives have been meeting with executives from media companies to discuss "their vision for the future of TV," according to The Wall Street Journal. Those meetings, which have included Apple Senior Vice President Eddy Cue, reportedly been vague discussions about how users could access content "across phones, tablets and TVs."

But the report reiterated that Apple is working on its own connected television set, something that would go well beyond the company's current set-top box offering with the Apple TV.

"Apple is working on its own television that relies on wireless streaming technology to access shows, movies and other content, according to people briefed on the project," the report said.

The talks are said to have covered how Apple would stream content to users in new ways, allowing them to continue watching video across multiple devices like a TV, tablet and smartphone. But the plans also cover what could be done with Apple's existing products, including the iPhone, iPad and Apple TV.

"The TV device Apple is working on would use a version of Apple's wireless-streaming technology AirPlay to allow users to control it from iPhones and iPads, according to people briefed on the matter," the report said. "When the company plans to start selling such a device and whether it would receive traditional broadcast or cable signals remains unclear, said these people, who say Apple may change its plans."

One system Apple is said to have worked on would integrate DVR storage into its existing iCloud service, allowing users to watch shows they have bought or recorded on multiple devices.

"The company has also talked to television-service providers about teaming up on new video services for Apple devices, according to people familiar with the matter," the report said. "It has also broached the idea of licensing content directly from media companies for some sort of subscription-TV service, resembling the packages now offered by cable operators, but the talks have been 'exploratory,' according to people familiar with the matter."

Rumors of an Apple television set have gained considerable traction since the release of the authorized biography of Steve Jobs in October. In that book, Jobs hinted to biographer Walter Isaacson that Apple was at work on a completely new device that would feature "the simplest user interface you could imagine," saying he had finally "cracked" the secret to an easy-to-use TV.

Reports have suggested that Apple's anticipated television set could arrive as early as mid 2012, while others have seen Apple announcing it in late 2012 for an early 2013 sale date. One report from earlier this month claimed the TV will come in three sizes, including 32 inches and 55 inches.

Cook: Look, here's the deal. We're going to start offering your shows the way we offer music: Pay for access to a show, stream any episode of that show any time you want any way you want, no commercials.

Companies: No!

(one of them perks up): Well

Cook: Okay, so we'll just drop all access to the rest of you guys' stuff and let his stuff through.

Cook: Look, here's the deal. We're going to start offering your shows the way we offer music: Pay for access to a show, stream any episode of that show any time you want any way you want, no commercials.

Companies: No!

(one of them perks up): Well

Cook: Okay, so we'll just drop all access to the rest of you guys' stuff and let his stuff through.

Rest: We fold

This one of the reasons I like Apple, I loath ads and will pay an appropriate price to not have them.

This one of the reasons I like Apple, I loath ads and will pay an appropriate price to not have them.

This is where iAds could kick in. Web style targeting but on the livingroom TV would be attractive for advertisers. The option to pay more in exchange for less ads would be attractive for (some) consumers. In theory, at least. The people most likely to be willing to pay to have less ads are likely the very ones the advertisers most would want to reach.

This is where iAds could kick in. Web style targeting but on the livingroom TV would be attractive for advertisers. The option to pay more in exchange for less ads would be attractive for (some) consumers. In theory, at least. The people most likely to be willing to pay to have less ads are likely the very ones the advertisers most would want to reach.

But why would I do that (or accept that as being kosher) when I can already just buy the stuff from iTunes without any ads at all?

Oh, something else relevant; how do iTunes TV show subscriptions work? I've never done one nor looked up stuff about them directly.

Do you buy it at the beginning of the season and then on the night of the broadcast the show downloads for your viewing, or does it have a time delay?

Because if the former is the case, we basically already have what I suggested above, meaning I'm either not thinking this through enough or Apple isn't selling the Apple TV correctly.

What is the point? We have the Apple TV already that works with any screen. Any features can be added to a similar device that works with any TV... massive sales potential that way. Making a TV itself is pointless.

This is where iAds could kick in. Web style targeting but on the livingroom TV would be attractive for advertisers. The option to pay more in exchange for less ads would be attractive for (some) consumers. In theory, at least. The people most likely to be willing to pay to have less ads are likely the very ones the advertisers most would want to reach.

Content aside, Apple will have to contend with three major issues in its move to TV:

1) Apple will have to start to deal with, and bring in the pipe providers, i.e., the cable companies: like the telcos, they're another business model that needs some disruption. But without them, many of its plans will be stillborn or choked off at the outset.

2) Apple will have to go beyond 55" - up to 65", at least (say, 46", 55", and 65"). Apple may also have to consider 3D (the technology for which is getting to be surprisingly good on TVs).

3) We are probably seeing the slow, but soon to be rapid, re-emergence of plasma (which was once given up for dead). Apple may have to consider that option as well.

What is the point? We have the Apple TV already that works with any screen. Any features can be added to a similar device that works with any TV... massive sales potential that way. Making a TV itself is pointless.

It's a chicken/egg scenario.

The networks aren't going to bow to Apple's demands for full and cheap access to the content unless Apple have a lot of leverage in the TV market... and it's hard for Apple to get a lot of leverage in the TV market without the networks giving Apple full and cheap access to the content.

Look at something like the Xbox 360. The primary function most people purchased it for was a games console. It's not until now, after 60+ million of these Trojan horses have been shipping into people's living rooms that Microsoft was able to secure a deal with the networks to provide content.

Apple need their own Trojan horse.

The cheap Apple TV along with the lure of something like AirPlay is certainly one way. Perhaps another way is through a full HDTV.

This one of the reasons I like Apple, I loath ads and will pay an appropriate price to not have them.

Are you talking about paying more than $40 a month for content free of ads? Because right now we get about 18 minutes of ads for about that price. To get zero ads for first aired shows you can bet the price would be considerably more -- not counting introductory experimentation phases.

You have to figure out some way to pay for these 1-8 million dollar per-episode TV shows. Considering that most people watch 2-3 per night or around 60 per month that's a lot of audience you have to maintain at $1 per episode not counting distributor profit.

So if you watched 60 episodes at $2 each? $3 each? How much is it worth to get zero ads?

And that doesn't take into account the history of 100-300% profit these media investors have become accustom to by creating artificial scarcity with time-released distribution channels.

pretty much all consumers hate ads, especially on something they are paying for piecemeal.

So unless the price is hella cheap like less than Hulu+ with say one ad at the top and nothing in the stream, folks will just keep getting their stuff ad free price free via torrents. After all, if you aren't one of the sacred 25k Nielsen peeps what you do isn't counted anyway

What is the point? We have the Apple TV already that works with any screen. Any features can be added to a similar device that works with any TV... massive sales potential that way. Making a TV itself is pointless.

I wouldn't consider it pointless. Most ventures of this sort have a phase in period. For those not yet needing a TV set, or those who just don't want an Apple HDTV set, there would be the AppleTV set top box, and for those looking or needing a new TV, there is the Apple HDTV. It's just my guess but sounds logical that this is the way Apple will approach the venture into the living room, a phase in.

Oh, something else relevant; how do iTunes TV show subscriptions work? I've never done one nor looked up stuff about them directly.

Do you buy it at the beginning of the season and then on the night of the broadcast the show downloads for your viewing, or does it have a time delay?

I think you're talking about the season pass, which isn't exactly a subscription because you are downloading, not streaming. And you don't pay to keep up access.

That said, you pay whenever and get whatever has been released and then at some point after the episode has aired (generally midnight US Pacific of that night), you are able to download the new episode.

What is the point? We have the Apple TV already that works with any screen. Any features can be added to a similar device that works with any TV... massive sales potential that way. Making a TV itself is pointless.

The current appleTV set top box remains mostly under the radar of public attention. A full-fledged TV set with the Apple brand on it would gain much more visibility. If Apple goes for the aggressive pricing strategy they adopted with iPad and the new MacBook Air, it could be a major hit and a living-room revolution.

Are you talking about paying more than $40 a month for content free of ads? Because right now we get about 18 minutes of ads for about that price. To get zero ads for first aired shows you can bet the price would be considerably more -- not counting introductory experimentation phases.

It pretty much has to work like this.

Apple's social graph is crap and they generally suck at creating an advertising platform. I can't imagine Apple could be promising the "holy grail" of targeted advertising to the networks.

Unless Apple can slip a Trojan horse into people's living rooms to give them leverage they have to organise a pay-as-you-go deal with the networks.

then i have to be quietly crapping myself at the prospect of what apple could do to my business.. no way they'll by into this, expect apple to go direct to content creators if they want to push forward with this .

By the end of the article we're left in exactly the same place as before. I think we all know Apple would have been in "talks" and that streaming content stored in iCloud was going to be part of any plan.

I don't agree with the lack of ads. Sure, it sounds great but I can see no model that makes it practical for television. I'll spend $1 to own a 4 minute song, I'll even spend $10 to go see a movie in a theater, but I won't spend $1 per episode of each TV show I watch because that is more than I pay now per month. That's also half the price Apple currently charging for renting a TV show at the moment.

Why any of this requires Apple to make a few TVs instead of just making a device that can content to any display with an HDMI connection.

PS: One thing that is in need of being revamped are consumer routers. Apple has some of the best but with so many devices being connected these days they are getting bogged. I hope that early 2012 sees a major update to their AirPort line, perhaps with an iOS-based system.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Nothing new here TBH. BTW, few people could afford them not unless you sell one of your relatives or commit yourself to a back alley lifestyle. Case in point, how much are Apple monitors and what size they are? Compare that to say, Samsung or LG smart TVs. We all know Apple won't skimmed on specs. or 'whoa!' features. That would drive prices high. Plus, how small they can be to make it affordable and how large they would contain so to avoid from being criticised for being too expensive (comparatively to competitors) or too small (for the Americans)?

What is the point? We have the Apple TV already that works with any screen. Any features can be added to a similar device that works with any TV... massive sales potential that way. Making a TV itself is pointless.

I think the point is in replacing your cable box. If could get the 10 or so channels I watch a la carte via apple then he product(appletv) is worh considering. I'm annoyed that I pay 50+ dollars for a couple channels and DVR support

By the end of the article we're left in exactly the same place as before. I think we all know Apple would have been in "talks" and that streaming content stored in iCloud was going to be part of any plan.

I don't agree with the lack of ads. Sure, it sounds great but I can see no model that makes it practical for television. I'll spend $1 to own a 4 minute song, I'll even spend $10 to go see a movie in a theater, but I won't spend $1 per episode of each TV show I watch because that is more than I pay now per month. That's also half the price Apple currently charging for renting a TV show at the moment.

Why any of this requires Apple to make a few TVs instead of just making a device that can content to any display with an HDMI connection.

PS: One thing that is in need of being revamped are consumer routers. Apple has some of the best but with so many devices being connected these days they are getting bogged. I hope that early 2012 sees a major update to their AirPort line, perhaps with an iOS-based system.

Thy are gonna have to go with a subscription model. Three 21 episode shows at a dollar a show is $60. I'm sure most of us have 6-10 shows consistently watched in the house. Add to it that most people may want to rent vs own and it makes since to make it subscription based

I think the point is in replacing your cable box. If could get the 10 or so channels I watch a la carte via apple then he product(appletv) is worh considering. I'm annoyed that I pay 50+ dollars for a couple channels and DVR support

If people flock to such a concept the way they have to other Apple products you'll 1) be paying a lot less to your cable company for content they bought in bulk based on expected viewership, and 2) you'll be using more of their internet services.

This means to make up the massive losses they'll have to raise the price per cable TV charge for those still buying such services (but that would force even more to leave) and/or raise the prices on cable, add hard caps, soft caps with additional payments, and/or throttle your speed which could make Apple's service unfriendly as a result.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

But why would I do that (or accept that as being kosher) when I can already just buy the stuff from iTunes without any ads at all?

The idea of an Apple TV with ads was discussed at some length a while back I relation to a rumor about a free or reduced price, version of IOS. The idea would be cheaper content against ads. Nobody likes ads but the question would be wether you'd rather pay for content or not pay but have ads.

Quote:

Oh, something else relevant; how do iTunes TV show subscriptions work? I've never done one nor looked up stuff about them directly.

Do you buy it at the beginning of the season and then on the night of the broadcast the show downloads for your viewing, or does it have a time delay?

When you buy a season the shows become available week on week. Not sure if there is a delay in comparison to broadcast.

Quote:

Because if the former is the case, we basically already have what I suggested above, meaning I'm either not thinking this through enough or Apple isn't selling the Apple TV correctly.

The idea of ad supported content would be in the context of a broder subscription package but could also work with single series or even single program purchases / rentals.

If people flock to such a concept the way they have to other Apple products you'll 1) be paying a lot less to your cable company for content they bought in bulk based on expected viewership, and 2) you'll be using more of their internet services.

This means to make up the massive losses they'll have to raise the price per cable TV charge for those still buying such services (but that would force even more to leave) and/or raise the prices on cable, add hard caps, soft caps with additional payments, and/or throttle your speed which could make Apple's service unfriendly as a result.

Agreed. And that's why the cable guys are investing in content, epecially in sports, in order to stay in control. The landscape is changing and the way we select what we view and the way we view it may change, but I cannot see us paying less. All the players are wary of being taken by surprise and having their b&b taken away from them.

Note that we pay for ad-supported content right now with cable and satellite. Heck, we even pay for access to ad-supported channels that we could otherwise access for "free" over the air.

If people are already complaining about these costs I can't imagine how it could be better unless we're talking about Apple becoming a studio and everything on screen right down to the shoes actors are wearing* are items you can read about and buy instantly by pausing and clicking on an on-screen item.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

If people flock to such a concept the way they have to other Apple products you'll 1) be paying a lot less to your cable company for content they bought in bulk based on expected viewership, and 2) you'll be using more of their internet services.

This means to make up the massive losses they'll have to raise the price per cable TV charge for those still buying such services (but that would force even more to leave) and/or raise the prices on cable, add hard caps, soft caps with additional payments, and/or throttle your speed which could make Apple's service unfriendly as a result.

Just some ramblings....

One way things could is the HBOGO method.
So... Perhaps a Comcast app fo example. Get anything they offer(based on your subscription) on demand. The app could have built in Siri navigation. New shows probably won't appear until the next day. Not sure how local stations would work. Cable providers aren't going down without a fight. At this point I don't see apple can leverage to displace the cable providers. If you cant beat them join them. But eh I'm no expert.

Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.

One way things could is the HBOGO method.
So... Perhaps a Comcast app fo example. Get anything they offer(based on your subscription) on demand. The app could have built in Siri navigation. New shows probably won't appear until the next day. Not sure how local stations would work. Cable providers aren't going down without a fight. At this point I don't see apple can leverage to displace the cable providers. If you cant beat them join them. But eh I'm no expert.

I can see Apple being a conduit for content owned by others - the advantage to the consumer a more unified and simpler experience. But I doubt Apple would go that route as its fraught with problems (wary stake holders). If they are dealing directly with the studios I see apple positioning itself as a niche player with a better potential for added revenue for the studios than what is currently available. Something to live alongside the present players. I then see them developing this new model aggressively and if it gains traction it could become disruptive in a major way. It will depend on how attractive the package is out of the gate and on the back of that, how many devices they can sell. If they can sell enough devices and develop an ecosystem (aps) they will gain more confidence from the studios. It's a high stakes game, for sure.

One way things could is the HBOGO method.
So... Perhaps a Comcast app fo example. Get anything they offer(based on your subscription) on demand. The app could have built in Siri navigation. New shows probably won't appear until the next day. Not sure how local stations would work. Cable providers aren't going down without a fight. At this point I don't see apple can leverage to displace the cable providers. If you cant beat them join them. But eh I'm no expert.

Apple partnering with networks, studios and distributors to reenforce the established lock-in by adding Apple devices to the mix is the best method of "finally cracked it" I can see that benefits Apple since the hard part is the logistics of partnerships, not the simple concept of sticking an AppleTV in a TV.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

The thing about this article and the responses to it is that folks don't seem to get that this is television. Apple made add some value to it. Apple is in a unique position to better integrate certain content. However, it is still television.

I was taken by the following quote:

Quote:

"... whether it would receive traditional broadcast or cable signals remains unclear, said these people, who say Apple may change its plans."

This is not a question. It is a matter of law. Just as the Apple iPhone must be capable of dialing the emergency 911 telephone number prior to activation, so too must an Apple television set be capable of receiving ATSC OTA broadcasts. Otherwise, it cannot be sold in the USA as a television set or television monitor. Presumably, it could be sold as a computer monitor. If the TV has an ATSC tuner, then it will also have a ClearQAM tuner for unscrambled digital cable programming, and possibly a NTSC for analog cable and low-power OTA.

As for cable transmission, cable TV providers in the US operate as franchises that are approved by local governments. Each municipal government sets conditions for its local cable franchise(s) to operate within its jurisdiction. This means that the governmental environment in South Podunk, Missouri is completely different from those in Podunk, Iowa or East Podunk, Iowa for that matter. If Apple were to enter the cable TV business, then not only would Apple have to worry about the fine-grained governmental regulatory environment, but it would also have to deal with the strong opposition from existing franchises. Does anyone really believe that Apple will get into the cable TV business?

Based on the general thrust of the OP, it appears that Apple HDTV will be a smart TV. This is to be expected. Such a device would certainly run iOS. It could leverage the 10 thousands of existing iOS apps and motivate thousands more. Smart TVs from other manufacturers already have apps for various and sundry streaming video sources. Certainly Apple's smart TV could follow suit.

However, a TV set has to accommodate a huge existing infrastructure of broadcast and cable programming, DVD players, Blu-ray players, video game consoles, camcorder playback, etc. There appears to be a popular notion among some that Apple can just chuck all of this and start with a clean slate of its own making. Well, it can't. What Apple can do, however, it to rationalize the various and sundry components of the modern home entertainment system. It appears as though this is the tack that it is taking.

Based on the general thrust of the OP, it appears that Apple HDTV will be a smart TV. This is to be expected. Such a device would certainly run iOS. It could leverage the 10 thousands of existing iOS apps and motivate thousands more. Smart TVs from other manufacturers already have apps for various and sundry streaming video sources. Certainly Apple's smart TV could follow suit.

The business model will be the least innovative aspect of the product. I guarantee that there will be innovative features that will seem completely obvious in retrospect. If I were designing the Apple TV, there would be:

A camera on the TV. This one is a no-brainer. Facetime, social networking... but also, Wii/Kinect type gaming.

Siri in the TV (and the TV is just the beginning).

Content sharing between the TV and the other iOS devices including an iOS device synch cradle.

Bluetooth in the TV. A keyboard on an iOS device with a big screen, even if confined to 1080p resolution, would be very useful in my office.

The ability to steam video to/from other devices over WiFi.

The App Store built right into the TV. And combined with the Bluetooth/camera, this would allow serious revenue through games. People spend a lot more for XBox games than the do for iPad games. There's the business model right there.

This is just off of the top of my head. I'm sure that I'm missing something that will surprise us all.

i can see apple being a conduit for content owned by others - the advantage to the consumer a more unified and simpler experience. But i doubt apple would go that route as its fraught with problems (wary stake holders). If they are dealing directly with the studios i see apple positioning itself as a niche player with a better potential for added revenue for the studios than what is currently available. Something to live alongside the present players. I then see them developing this new model aggressively and if it gains traction it could become disruptive in a major way.

If Apple are just a conduit it's not going to revolutionise anything. That isn't any different to Google's (unsanctioned) Google TV or Microsoft's (sanctioned) Xbox 360 update. i.e. if you search for a movie\\tv show you are presented with the all the apps that can serve that content to you.

If Apple were able get control of the content then I can see how they could be a very disruptive force... but there is no way in hell the studios will hand control over to Apple unless Apple have some serious leverage (it has even been said that Apple pose a bigger threat to the movie industry than piracy).

I'm yet to see a great idea of how Apple can create enough leverage to get access to the content they need.

Apple's current subscription pricing is crazy. Right now... a single TV show season is $20 (or $30 in HD)

If you like 4 shows... that's $80 or $120.

That'll suit you if all you ever wanna watch is those 4 shows.

The other option is paying for cable. While that will run you $80 or more every month... you also get access to EVERY TV show that is currently on the air. Every channel... every show. If you program your DVR to record all those shows... you basically have unlimited access to every show on TV.

There are some cord-cutters out there... and I'm sure they are happy with renting or purchasing a selection of TV shows. But there are far more people who still want cable and who watch tons of TV shows. Plus news, sports, all sorts of stuff.

For Apple to get access to the content they need at the price they need to make this work they will need leverage over the networks/studios/distributors etc.

It's unlikely that an external threat to their business model will cause them to hand control to Apple. Cross that off the list.

It's unlikely that Apple will gain such total control over the existing TV industry that the networks will be forced to come around. Cross that off the list.

The only thing I can think for Apple to do is come up with a new revenue model that only Apple can do and/or no one else has thought of, and for the promise of this new revenue stream to be too great for the studios to turn down.

Actually doing something no other company has thought of... that's what I would call innovative.

Actually doing something no other company has thought of... that's what I would call innovative.

I can't think of any innovation that Apple has utilized with great success that wasn't simply a massive refinement of current technologies (which the naysayers isn't real innovation), wasn't a combination of multiple technologies (which the dissenters claim was always obvious), or something that simplified technologies (which the indecorums claim just adds proprietary lock-ins).

I think whatever they do will something that has been discussed [Ia]d nauseam[/I] but falls under the "easier said than done" category of integration and convenience. For example, the iPhone. The idea for a large touchscreen that reacts instantly and smoothly to your touch, weighs only a few ounces yet lasts all day on a single charge while always being connected to a wireless network has been around for 100(?) years, but it wasn't until many technologies were refined, combined and simplified that it becomes the standard by which all others now have to springboard from if they wish to compete.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Am i the only one that thinks that this tv set idea is stupid and a step backwards?

A) they already have apple tv. Instead of amtv set: why not focussing on this device and make the software a lot better and the films cheaper and ad realtime streaming capabilities and siri input? The missing key is a remote with a microphone. No big deal.

B) one of the things i noticed within the last 10 years: i watch a lot less tv! Tv is so 80ies! Ir is backwards because it pressures the viewer to watch things at a certain time. I watch most content now on the ipad - when i want. I rarely switch on my tv at all. I could even go without it (not the tv set itself, but the program on it). I can even watch real tv as a stream from my ipad to the apple tv.

C) i like apples design, but i am sure that their tv sets would cost a fortune. Many people would of course pay 1,5 to 2 times more for an 'ives'designed tv, but it would not become the mass market. The apple tv box is the key. But this device is continously left on the side. And unless they don't lower the film rental prices (especially in europe where the rental of sn hd film that isn't even hd cost about 7 us$) they won't succeed.

Apple could be the only TV provider in the world who could potentially think about the consumers. If they licensed all TV content of the whole world, then made it super easy for people to FIND GREAT CONTENT - then there it is.